Babysitting While White
I'm a little late to posting this story -- the story of a white grandpa who was detained for talking a walk with his black granddaughter. Hasn't anybody noticed that white people and black people sometimes marry? It's not like a dog walking a giraffe down the street to see a white grandpa and a black granddaughter -- or any number of mixed race combos. Grits For Breakfast posts:

As soon as we crossed the street, just two blocks from my house as the crow flies, the police car that just passed us hit its lights and wheeled around, with five others appearing almost immediately, all with lights flashing. The officers got out with tasers drawn demanding I raise my hands and step away from the child. I complied, and they roughly cuffed me, jerking my arms up behind me needlessly. Meanwhile, Ty edged up the hill away from the officers, crying. One of them called out in a comforting tone that they weren't there to hurt her, but another officer blew up any good will that might have garnered by brusquely snatching her up and scuttling her off to the back seat of one of the police cars. (By this time more cars had joined them; they maxxed out at 9 or 10 police vehicles.)

I gave them the phone numbers they needed to confirm who Ty was and that she was supposed to be with me (and not in the back of their police car), but for quite a while nobody seemed too interested in verifying my "story." One officer wanted to lecture me endlessly about how they were just doing their job, as if the innocent person handcuffed on the side of the road cares about such excuses. I asked why he hadn't made any calls yet, and he interrupted his lecture to say "we've only been here two minutes, give us time" (actually it'd been longer than that). "Maybe so," I replied, sitting on the concrete in handcuffs, "but there are nine of y'all milling about doing nothing by my count so between you you've had 18 minutes for somebody to get on the damn phone by now so y'all can figure out you screwed up." Admittedly, this did not go over well. I could tell I was too pissed off to say anything constructive and silently vowed to keep mum from then on.

As all this was happening, the deputy constable who'd questioned us before walked up to the scene and began conversing with some of the officers. She kept looking over at me nervously as I stood 20 feet or so away in handcuffs, averting her gaze whenever our eyes risked meeting. It seemed pretty clear she was the one who called in the cavalry, and it was equally clear she understood she was in the wrong.

A supervisor arrived and began floating around among the milling officers (I have no idea what function most of those cops thought they were fulfilling). Finally, she sidled up to repeat the same lecture I'd heard from the young pup officer who'd handcuffed me: "When we get a call about a possible kidnapping we have to take it very seriously," etc., etc.. By this time, though, I'd lost patience with that schtick. Interrupting her repetitive monologue, I explained that I could care less how they justified what they were doing, and could they please stop explaining themselves, focus on their jobs, and get this over with as soon as possible so Ty and I could go home? She paused as though she wanted to argue, then her shoulders slumped a bit, she half-smiled and replied "Fair enough!," wheeling around and issuing inaudible directions to some of the milling officers, all of whom appeared to continue doing nothing, just as before. Not long after that they released us.

Ty told me later that back in the police car she'd been questioned, not just about me but about her personal life, or as she put it, "all my business": They asked about her school, what she'd been doing that evening, to name all the people in her family, and pressed her to say if I or anyone else had done anything to her. Ty was frustrated, she said later, that they kept repeating the same questions, apparently hoping for different answers. She didn't understand why, after she'd told them who I was, the police didn't just let me go. And when it became clear they wouldn't take her word for it, she began to fear the police would take me away and leave her alone with all those scary cops. (I must admit, for a moment there I felt the same way!) On the upside, said Ty, when they were through questioning her one of the officers let her play with his flashlight, which she considered a high point. Don't you miss life being that simple?

Part of the answer, of course, to Ty's Very Good Question about why I wasn't released when she confirmed my identity is that I was in handcuffs and she was in police custody before anybody asked anyone anything. "Seize first and ask questions later" is better than "shoot first," I suppose, but it's problematic for the same reasons. I found out later police had told my wife and Ty's mom that I'd refused to let them question the child - a patent lie since they'd whisked her away into the back of a police car while I was handcuffed. I wasn't in a position to refuse anything at that point.

How hard would it have been to perform a safety check without running up on me like I'm John Dillinger and scaring the crap out of a five year old? I didn't resist or struggle, but they felt obliged to handcuff me and snatch the kid up for interrogation away from any adult family member. Nine police cars plus the deputy constable all showing up to investigate the heinous crime of "babysitting while white."

I understand that the police are supposed to investigate when accusations are made, but what's with the entire lack of reason and sensitivity? Why is this so often the case these days? I know there are good and reasonable police officers -- a couple of them are my friends. But, I read about more and more abuse of power and other police state tactics and it's worrisome.

Comments

You don't need reason and sensibility when you have a badge. You don't need a reason to harass people, to intimidate people, to make up silly rules for them to follow, etc. etc.
Back in the day we were taught to trust the police, but now...

How does something like this not 'traumatize' the poor granddaughter??

As far as the children, we have to indoctrina--err protect them.

Posted by: DrCos
at February 20, 2012 3:38 AM

Excuse me sir!

Uhh Yes!

We would like to ask you and the little girl a question?

Umm. Why?

Well sir, you are a bit of an odd pair.

Yes, she is my granddaughter.

Really!? Well I want to verify that with the little miss here. What is her name?

Her name is Ty.

Hi Ty, how are you? (test to see if child is in distress)

Fine.

What are doing right now? (Child may give prompt of who is out with and any suspicious activites like the man here is looking for his dog.

(AND SO ON)

Really not that hard. Couple of questions, some could be consider a little rude, but with some politeness and smile (and hand near weapon) all is good.

As a more general observations, the police have for the past decade or two taken the whole "command presence" attitude too far. In dealing with boozy jerks and surly kids who are bigger and stronger in many cases, cops will essentially bluff people into complying by escalating the social aggression, to show dominance.

But too many of those police now adopt that same total fucking asshole mien when talking to person who jaywalked, or as in this case, did nothing wrong at all.

Many cops need to be fired all across America, because they were selected by a system emphasizing this aggressive mindset to police a population that is very law-abiding in general.

Posted by: Spartee
at February 20, 2012 5:28 AM

This is plain outrageous.

Posted by: Eric
at February 20, 2012 8:02 AM

Sorry. You missed the story. It's not "Babysitting while White." It's "Babysitting While Male."

Adult males with children are often presumed pedophile until proven innocent. I halfway expect to get cops called on me any time I'm out with my daughter and take her to a restroom to change her diaper.

Posted by: Christopher
at February 20, 2012 9:39 AM

It's a compelling story. Too bad Scott Henson embellished key elements in an attempt at self-aggrandizment. The Austin Police Department took strong issue with the events as depicted by Henson, and is releasing patrol car tapes this week which will disprove Henson's allegations. Henson has since publicly acknowledged that events didn't quite take place as he originally suggested.

There's an ill wind blowing that you can smell here. This furthers the idea that the police are not "ours" or "us", or any group deserving of support.

In this area we've had a couple of officers killed in the line of duty, all three doing their job well, and not in the manner described in this article. But the more incidents like this occur, the more the neighborhood becomes a battlefield.

People start calling police for everything because they cannot cope. This is what you end up with.

If this man had known ANY of the officers, this wouldn't have happened. When possible, see that your beat cops know you!

Posted by: Radwaste
at February 20, 2012 9:59 AM

APD did not do what he said. There are plenty of examples of overreach, we don't need to lie for them. Bet his version was to get out in the press quick for the payday he's planning on their dime.

Posted by: momof4
at February 20, 2012 10:01 AM

Actually, it seems he admitted that he exaggerated or misremembered a couple of things which isn't the same as the thing not having happened.

I tend to think of the Austin police as pretty reasonable. Granted, I haven't had more than just casual contact with them, but my impression has always been pretty good...

Regarding the specifics of this story, the big questions are:

(1) Why did the APD respond with six vehicles (and more later)

(2) Why did they feel it necessary to separate him from the child, and then handcuff him before even opening the conversation?

Both of these were total overkill. In particular, taking the girl away from her grandfather for questioning is guaranteed to have given her a lasting psychological shock. Already at the age of five she has learned to never trust police, and to never look to them for help.

Posted by: a_random_guy
at February 20, 2012 11:03 AM

Oh, I forgot:

"...see that your beat cops know you"

What's a beat cop? That concept doesn't really exist anymore, and hasn't for decades. Not since all cops got their squad cars to drive around in.

Posted by: a_random_guy
at February 20, 2012 11:07 AM

Random guy, I'm sure you know what I mean.

If you are anonymous, you are "one of them" to police.

Be a person, not a thing.

Posted by: Radwaste
at February 20, 2012 12:26 PM

I just heard about this. Police offer caught on tape saying that he will make stuff up.

I would be curious how that professor who tells you not to talk to the police would have handled this situation. Suddenly you are in handcuffs, your granddaughter is taken away- who really would keep the piece of mind to say "talk to my lawyer"?

I was recently in a situation, not of my doing by any means, where I had to talk to the police, and that video kept going through my head. Taken the wrong way with bad cops, I could have been put through a wringer, but luckily our police responders were 100% professional.

"Officers would not have had to stop Henson if he had identified himself and cooperated with the constable, Acevedo said."

In other words, Henson was arrested (when you get put in cuffs, you've been arrested) for the "crime" of not showing an ID on demand. It's a well established principle that police do not have the authority to simply stop people at random on the street and demand that they show ID. Citizens do not need a hall pass to be out in public.

The APD will respond that they had reasonable suspicion that Henson was committing a crime because of the 911 call. However the caller said that Henson "chased the girl into the woods", whereas the constable simply saw Henson and the girl walking down the street. He was not chasing her and presumably he did not have her in strong-arm restraint. So if I was on that jury, I would conclude that reasonable suspicion did not exist, and that Henson was subjected to false arrest the moment he was placed in cuffs. There might also be grounds for kidnapping charges in relation to the girl.

Posted by: Cousin Dave
at February 20, 2012 6:55 PM

Ugh, no one's reading the actual facts. he was not handcuffed, the girl was not taken from him. There are 3 or 4 of us in Austin, posting here. You might want to read us. Just a thought. he didn't "misremember" being put in handcuffs when he wasn't. He straight up lied his ass off.

Posted by: momof4
at February 20, 2012 7:29 PM

momof4:
Ugh, no one's reading the actual facts. he was not handcuffed, the girl was not taken from him.
- - - - - - - - - -
No, he WAS handcuffed and she WAS taken from him.

The only thing he's retracted is saying an officer had his taser drawn, when it was still in the holster.

Six police cars DID show up.

And the numbskulls took 20 minutes to verify they'd made a mistake.

Posted by: Ben David
at February 21, 2012 1:30 AM

Guilty until proven innocent. It started with the IRS, was perfected during insane drug war, and now is seeping into all other aspects of law enforcement.

Not the America I grew up in. I miss it.

Posted by: cpabroker
at February 21, 2012 2:28 AM

Ugh, no one's reading the actual facts. he was not handcuffed, the girl was not taken from him.

The Statesman article quoted above says otherwise. I think what bothers me most is the idea that you don't have the right to refuse to give your name to the police even after you have been shown not to have committed any crime.

Posted by: Astra
at February 21, 2012 6:35 AM

If people would read the articles as linked, they would find that:

1. Officers from two different jurisdictions responded, thus the apparent overkill.

2. The female officer that the man originally accused of being the one to intiate the whole incident had nothing to do with it. She was just a responder.

3. The "gentleman" in question is notably anti cop. He used to have a blog solely devoted to making shit up about the Austin police.

My take--dude has an accomplice who "reported a kidnapping" in order to set up this whole situation. He "misremembered" nothing.

I'm not saying that cops don't make mistakes or that there isn't any police brutality--far from it. But when people make a big fat hairy deal over routine procedures that they simply don't understand (2 different jurisdictions responding, for instance)...well, let's just say "type, delete, type, delete."

What if this *had* been a kidnapping? Are six units appropriate? What if they had been slow to respond and only one unit showed? Would the African American community then be up in arms because black children don't get the same media play as the Jon Benet Ramsay's and Madalyn McCann's?

No matter what the police do, some faction gets pissed off. That's why they are increasingly attracting *only* power hungry people. The ones who actually want to help their fellow citizens get fed up with publicity stunts like this and fuckheads in general and quit.

Posted by: deathbysnoosnoo
at February 21, 2012 11:21 AM

Amy, you say you have cop friends. Before you publish another inflammatory article please go to them and confirm the following statement:

It is the policy of most if not all police jurisdictions to *not* release details that clearly exonerate the police if it also means smearing the citizen. They only do so if the public demands an explanation, and even then, it's minimal details at best.

Case in point--several years ago, in a Washington town up by the Canadian border, an officer was threatened with a weapon (can't remember if it was a knife or a gun), and the person doing the threatening was advancing on the officer. He had also been violent to others in the vicinity (this was a bar) and the unfortunate outcome was that the guy got shot by a cop.

Oh, the outrage, the hue and cry of the masses...what the cops knew but didn't release to the media was that the guy had been talking to his friends about committing suicide by cop. I knew because I had connections in the community. Later on one of guys friends talked to the papers and *that's* when the detail was released. The officer involved had never had to shoot his gun in the line of duty before and was traumatized by the whole thing because he was a nice guy. His department could have cleared his name at the expense of the shooting victim, yet they didn't.

This happens all the time, Amy. All. The. Time. There is almost always shit you don't know, because it hasn't been released. And a testament to how brutal the police are not? With all your criticisms you are still entitled to police protection. The guy who had a blog slamming the Austin police is still entitled to protection. The family of the guy up here in Washington who opened fire on 4 police officers who were just sitting and having coffee is still entitled to police protection--as the perp would be *himself* if he were still alive, despite all his previous violent run ins with police. As are all the felons who are walking around free. If they become crime victims, they are still entitled to police protection.

Run this post past your cop friends. Show your readers that you are interested in truth, not just traffic garnered by publishing hot, clickable, topics. Please.

Posted by: deathbysnoosnoo
at February 21, 2012 12:12 PM

You might want to look int this this a little deeper. APD has released dash cam video that pretty much refutes this guys whole story. APD police chief said if he had identified himself to the constable who first questioned him, the police would not have responded to the call.

Posted by: rodney smith
at February 22, 2012 9:53 AM

It's interesting how many people are insisting that the original story is "refuted."

Basically two things I wrote were flat-out wrong, both of which are detailed in an Update/Correction posted at the end of the original item on Friday. First, I recalled an officer pulling his taser out when in fact his hand hovered over his weapon but it remained holstered. After I finally got to see some of the video for myself, I posted a correction. I also posted another correction: I originally thought the deputy constable (the first officer who detained us) had called in the rest of the cavalry and assigned blame to her when I shouldn't. Turns out, she did the right thing and IMO it was APD who overreacted, an opinion which explains why the chief is mad.

Acevedo also pretends in the Statesman article that his officers stopped us because I refused to identify myself to the deputy constable. In fact, the deputy constable's written report, which the chief let me read in his office but would not give me a copy of, she said she stopped us, asked Ty a few questions, seemingly did not think the situation required further investigation and had begun to return to the Millenium Center. ... She never told APD I did not identify myself before I was handcuffed, so that fact-bite was irrelevant. ...

What aspects of my original recitation were correct? Well, basically everything else. Despite Acevedo's inflammatory attack on my credibility, not much is actually in dispute. Someone called 911 when I left the Millennium Center with my granddaughter. I was stopped not once but twice. I did, in fact, allow the Constable to question Ty and she left understanding that I was Ty's grandpa. We were then stopped by several APD officers. I counted six cars initially, with three more arriving soon thereafter and a supervisor arriving later. Acevedo didn't dispute any of that. I was handcuffed. Ty was taken away from me, pulled into a police car and questioned. We were not immediately released. Some minutes later, after they finally called my wife and daughter, we were let go without an apology. ...

So, on the basis of one factual error which I readily owned after seeing the conflicting video, I am a liar, says the chief. The strangest part is, Acevedo brought me into APD headquarters Thursday afternoon to meet with him and his staff, proposing that we do a media interview together and try and make all this a "teaching moment" for the public (his words). He was upset that the issue was being discussed without him getting to "frame" it. ... My first hint that Acevedo was about to show me an especially Janus-faced visage came Friday afternoon, when he began leaking emails and launching personal attacks on a local listserv through his favorite stalking horse, retired Texas Monthly publisher Mike Levy. Then Saturday in the paper he's calling me a liar. "Teaching moment" my ass.

So, based on the video, who's actually closer to being totally correct here?

I'm still siding with Grits, but it's interesting to see the people denouncing him as a liar.

deathbysnoosnoo, so even if he did have an "accomplice" (suggesting something immoral or illegal) make the call to "set up" his granddaughter to be terrorized (see how that works?), so what? Is he wrong? Was he treated correctly?

If you were here i'd put my baretta up your nose and ask you if YOU had the guts to repeat it in person. i did my time in the military i know many ways to kill in 3 sec's or less do you?

Plus this would not be the first time i had to control an out of control cop!

Had to stop one years ago from forcing his way into my home he got said baretta pointed at him and was told if he crossed the threshold of my home without either a warant or was chasing comeone thought the door i'd put a bullet right though his empty head!